Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/10/2006 6:48:15 AM EDT
My contention is if Ross Perot had stayed out of the race that year Bill Clinton would not have been elected.

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:49:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:50:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
Probably.



+1
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:51:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:52:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 6:53:27 AM EDT by SHIVAN]
Didn't he take 19% of the vote running on a "conservative" platform? All Bush needed was 6% more to win the popular vote....

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:52:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 10:21:55 AM EDT by SS109]
Most likely. I voted for Ross Perot because Bush the Elder lied about the new taxes. And I think Clinton would have lost his second term if the Republicans had only nominated someone else other than Bob Dole.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:53:19 AM EDT
Yeah, Bob Dole... what was that about.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:53:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
Most likely. I voted for Ross Perot because Bush the Elder lied about the new taxes. And I think clinton would have lost his second term if the Republicans had only nominated someone else other than Bob Dole.



So, in hindsight, do you feel that Clinton was a better choice than Bush?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:57:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:58:41 AM EDT
It was bush's fault really.....


Bush Sr lost the election on his own merits, Perot just made it final.


Bob DullDole lost on his own merits as well.

The only reason Bush Sr won the first time was because he was Regans VP and people assumed he would carry on those same policies, talk about assumptions.......
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:02:14 AM EDT
I think it's a strong "maybe".

I know a few Dems who were friends of my Dad from church who voted for Perot. Remember, people weren't voting for Perot because they thought that he'd win or because they thought that he had good ideas. People voted for Perot because he wasn't a politician and they wanted to send a message to the politicians. I'm sure that there was a fair number of Dems who were fed up with politicians and voted for Perot too.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:02:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:04:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Conservatives learned their lesson with Perot.
Go ahead and vote your conscience.
Then watch while the democrats try to destroy America.



We get a slow fuck from the Republicans and a fast fuck from the Dems. That's the only difference.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:05:31 AM EDT
I've thought that since the '92 election.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:06:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:09:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
My taxes have dropped, we are killing ragheads, and we have two new justices who seem pretty good.
These are my priorities and they are being met.
Do you think Gore or Kerry would be doing any of the above three?



Gore or Kerry would be:

1) Raising taxes and entitlement programs.
2) Negotiating with Radical Islamic Fundamentalists via the UN.
3) Would have appointed someone like Chuck Schumer as Chief Justice.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:09:51 AM EDT
No. But the virtually unchallenged bias and unfairness of the media back then sure helped Clinton too.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:10:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
Most likely. I voted for Ross Perot because Bush the Elder lied about the new taxes. And I think clinton would have lost his second term if the Republicans had only nominated someone else other than Bob Dole.


I voted for Bush, but in my heart I knew he was going to loose because he started campaigning so late. I think Bush Sr assumed that winning GWI was going to get him re-elected.

As for Bob Dole, I voted for the guy, but my then 65 year old mom, said, "that guy is way too old for the job," she voted for Clinton.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:10:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Conservatives learned their lesson with Perot.
Go ahead and vote your conscience.
Then watch while the democrats try to destroy America.

Yup. Clinton would have definately lost if not for perot.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:11:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Conservatives learned their lesson with Perot.
Go ahead and vote your conscience.
Then watch while the democrats try to destroy America.



We get a slow fuck from the Republicans and a fast fuck from the Dems. That's the only difference.


Yet its still a substantial difference.
My taxes have dropped, we are killing ragheads, and we have two new justices who seem pretty good.
These are my priorities and they are being met.
Do you think Gore or Kerry would be doing any of the above three?



+1000


Waste your vote on some unelectable 3rd party candidate to make a satement and the next thing you know, BOHICA!
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:12:00 AM EDT
No, Clinton would have lost.

Perot did the same thing that TR did with the Bull Moose Party in 1912. He effectively split the Republican electorate and got Woodrow Wilson elected.

IIRC, there was some bad blood between Bush 41 and Perot dating back many years to when Bush was the Director of Central Intelligence...I think.

Anyway, had Perot not been there, Bush wins easily. Remember, Clinton won with only about 43% of the vote...and THAT was only a small percentage of all America citizens. Lucky and smart...and a huge crook.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:12:16 AM EDT
Clinton still would have won. Bush the Elder was a monumental disappointment. I really believe that most of those Perot voters would have stayed home. I'm also afraid that's what 2008 is going to look like. JMHO

CO
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:17:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 7:21:35 AM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
My taxes have dropped, we are killing ragheads, and we have two new justices who seem pretty good.
These are my priorities and they are being met.
Do you think Gore or Kerry would be doing any of the above three?



Gore or Kerry would be:

1) Raising taxes and entitlement programs.
2) Negotiating with Radical Islamic Fundamentalists via the UN.
3) Would have appointed someone like Chuck Schumer as Chief Justice.



1) Your taxes are going back up soon if congress doesn't make the tax cuts permenant.
2) Bush outlined half a dozen new entitlement programs that he plans to start in his SOTU address.
3) Let's not get too excited about Bush's SCOTUS appointments yet. Only 3 of the current 9 were appointed by democrats, yet we have 5 known liberals.

I am reserving the right to vote independant in 2008, and if Hillary wins I'm not going to spend 4 years listening to shit about it either. You see, if the Republican party chooses to run that piece of shit cocksucker Ruddy then they are essentially telling me that I can either vote for their gun grabbing, fag loving, baby killing New York liberal or I can go fuck myself. Well, if that happens then they can go fuck themselves too!
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:32:23 AM EDT
The people who wasted their vote on that nutburger Perot want to think Clinton would have won anyway, but he probably would not have.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:34:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:37:42 AM EDT
Probably, but what cost him IMO was the import ban.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:39:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 7:41:40 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
2) Bush outlined half a dozen new entitlement programs that he plans to start in his SOTU address.



While in the same breath he stated he would move to cut programs that are failing in their "mission". The difference? Gore/Kerry/Dems would simply add on more programs and not cut anything that was failing, or corrupted. They would extended the corrupt and failing programs, add more AND raise taxes further and further.


3) Let's not get too excited about Bush's SCOTUS appointments yet. Only 3 of the current 9 were appointed by democrats, yet we have 5 known liberals.


I didn't mention anything about his picks, did I? I stated that Chuck Schumer would likely have been a candidate for Gore/Kerry's nomination.

There is nothing left to chance when someone like Schumer is the candidate, at all. We stand a much better chance with Roberts and Alito than Schumer.

Or don't you agree? A 0% chance or 1% or greater? Exactly.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:42:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:09:30 AM EDT
Clinton won because the press refused to tell the truth about him. My brother was (and still is) a newspaper reporter and he admitted as much to me. The press covered for Clinton big-time in 1992.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:16:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 8:17:46 AM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
My taxes have dropped, we are killing ragheads, and we have two new justices who seem pretty good.
These are my priorities and they are being met.
Do you think Gore or Kerry would be doing any of the above three?



Gore or Kerry would be:

1) Raising taxes and entitlement programs.
2) Negotiating with Radical Islamic Fundamentalists via the UN.
3) Would have appointed someone like Chuck Schumer as Chief Justice.



1) Your taxes are going back up soon if congress doesn't make the tax cuts permenant.
2) Bush outlined half a dozen new entitlement programs that he plans to start in his SOTU address.
3) Let's not get too excited about Bush's SCOTUS appointments yet. Only 3 of the current 9 were appointed by democrats, yet we have 5 known liberals.

I am reserving the right to vote independant in 2008, and if Hillary wins I'm not going to spend 4 years listening to shit about it either. You see, if the Republican party chooses to run that piece of shit cocksucker Ruddy then they are essentially telling me that I can either vote for their gun grabbing, fag loving, baby killing New York liberal or I can go fuck myself. Well, if that happens then they can go fuck themselves too!



1. IF Congress doesn't make them permanent. Do you have some info that they won't?
2. Really. See Shivan's post.
3. You won't get excited until one of your dummycrat buddies are back in office.

If you are going to vote independent, learn to spell the word.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:18:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
2) Bush outlined half a dozen new entitlement programs that he plans to start in his SOTU address.



While in the same breath he stated he would move to cut programs that are failing in their "mission". The difference? Gore/Kerry/Dems would simply add on more programs and not cut anything that was failing, or corrupted. They would extended the corrupt and failing programs, add more AND raise taxes further and further.


3) Let's not get too excited about Bush's SCOTUS appointments yet. Only 3 of the current 9 were appointed by democrats, yet we have 5 known liberals.


I didn't mention anything about his picks, did I? I stated that Chuck Schumer would likely have been a candidate for Gore/Kerry's nomination.

There is nothing left to chance when someone like Schumer is the candidate, at all. We stand a much better chance with Roberts and Alito than Schumer.

Or don't you agree? A 0% chance or 1% or greater? Exactly.



Yeah, it's convenient how he leaves the parts out that make his "points" moot. Typical leftist trick.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:39:46 AM EDT
I figured it up one time. Assuming 2/3 of Perot voters went for Bush and 1/3 went for Clinton (I guess a safe assumption since Perot ran on a conservative platform) Bush would have been elected. As for '96 Jack Kemp should have been the Republican Presidential nominee not VP. But then Repubs had gotten a lot of things passed with Clinton as prez that might have failed under Bush (NAFTA, Welfare Reform) not to mention all his dirty little "secrets" that they could reign him in with if he got out of line, maybe they figured 4 more years of Slick Willie might not be so bad and didn't put up a strong contender. Just a thought.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:50:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Conservatives learned their lesson with Perot.
Go ahead and vote your conscience.
Then watch while the democrats try to destroy America.




You'd think that they learned... but no.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0201/csmimg/p3d.jpg

Now we have "the Eyebrow."
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:56:22 AM EDT
No, but Clinton would have lost had Bush run as a conservative. The lesson to be learned is don't piss off your base, not vote for the half-conservative to prevent the liberal from winning.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:00:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hellhound:

Originally Posted By SS109:
Most likely. I voted for Ross Perot because Bush the Elder lied about the new taxes. And I think clinton would have lost his second term if the Republicans had only nominated someone else other than Bob Dole.



So, in hindsight, do you feel that Clinton was a better choice than Bush?



Yes...Flame away, but yes.
Aside from his extra-curricular activities, the Clinton administration was unremarkable in regard to major issues. It was "status quo" for 8 years: no war, no major economic issues, etc. History books will remember the Clinton Administration as the one that was strife with more personal than professional issues.


Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:07:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
Yes...Flame away, but yes.
Aside from his extra-curricular activities, the Clinton administration was unremarkable in regard to major issues. It was "status quo" for 8 years: no war, no major economic issues, etc. History books will remember the Clinton Administration as the one that was strife with more personal than professional issues.



He worked "wonders" for the military personnel and military budgets, huh?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:09:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 9:16:39 AM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
2) Bush outlined half a dozen new entitlement programs that he plans to start in his SOTU address.



While in the same breath he stated he would move to cut programs that are failing in their "mission". The difference? Gore/Kerry/Dems would simply add on more programs and not cut anything that was failing, or corrupted. They would extended the corrupt and failing programs, add more AND raise taxes further and further.


3) Let's not get too excited about Bush's SCOTUS appointments yet. Only 3 of the current 9 were appointed by democrats, yet we have 5 known liberals.


I didn't mention anything about his picks, did I? I stated that Chuck Schumer would likely have been a candidate for Gore/Kerry's nomination.

There is nothing left to chance when someone like Schumer is the candidate, at all. We stand a much better chance with Roberts and Alito than Schumer.

Or don't you agree? A 0% chance or 1% or greater? Exactly.



Yeah, it's convenient how he leaves the parts out that make his "points" moot. Typical leftist trick.



Leftist? Shit...compared to me Bush is a leftist on most issues.

Oh, and for your information I was simply answering the portions of Shivan's statements which I felt had holes in them. Is it now necessary to argue against points that one agrees with. I do not dispute Shivan's contention we are "killing ragheads", that Shivan's priorities are being met, and I don't think that Kerry or Gore would be doing any better. That's kind of the whole fucking point!
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:12:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Conservatives learned their lesson with Perot.
Go ahead and vote your conscience.
Then watch while the democrats try to destroy America.

+1
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:13:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:

Originally Posted By Hellhound:

Originally Posted By SS109:
Most likely. I voted for Ross Perot because Bush the Elder lied about the new taxes. And I think clinton would have lost his second term if the Republicans had only nominated someone else other than Bob Dole.



So, in hindsight, do you feel that Clinton was a better choice than Bush?



Yes...Flame away, but yes.
Aside from his extra-curricular activities, the Clinton administration was unremarkable in regard to major issues. It was "status quo" for 8 years: no war, no major economic issues, etc. History books will remember the Clinton Administration as the one that was strife with more personal than professional issues.





Yeah, his lack of action towards terrorists was a major contribuiting factor towards September 11, 2001. So much for status quo.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:15:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
2) Bush outlined half a dozen new entitlement programs that he plans to start in his SOTU address.



While in the same breath he stated he would move to cut programs that are failing in their "mission". The difference? Gore/Kerry/Dems would simply add on more programs and not cut anything that was failing, or corrupted. They would extended the corrupt and failing programs, add more AND raise taxes further and further.


3) Let's not get too excited about Bush's SCOTUS appointments yet. Only 3 of the current 9 were appointed by democrats, yet we have 5 known liberals.


I didn't mention anything about his picks, did I? I stated that Chuck Schumer would likely have been a candidate for Gore/Kerry's nomination.

There is nothing left to chance when someone like Schumer is the candidate, at all. We stand a much better chance with Roberts and Alito than Schumer.

Or don't you agree? A 0% chance or 1% or greater? Exactly.



Yeah, it's convenient how he leaves the parts out that make his "points" moot. Typical leftist trick.



Leftist? Shit...compared to me Bush is a leftist on most issues.



I have said it before and you just reinforced it: The far right and the left sound so much alike it is hard to tell them apart.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:18:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
2) Bush outlined half a dozen new entitlement programs that he plans to start in his SOTU address.



While in the same breath he stated he would move to cut programs that are failing in their "mission". The difference? Gore/Kerry/Dems would simply add on more programs and not cut anything that was failing, or corrupted. They would extended the corrupt and failing programs, add more AND raise taxes further and further.


3) Let's not get too excited about Bush's SCOTUS appointments yet. Only 3 of the current 9 were appointed by democrats, yet we have 5 known liberals.


I didn't mention anything about his picks, did I? I stated that Chuck Schumer would likely have been a candidate for Gore/Kerry's nomination.

There is nothing left to chance when someone like Schumer is the candidate, at all. We stand a much better chance with Roberts and Alito than Schumer.

Or don't you agree? A 0% chance or 1% or greater? Exactly.



Yeah, it's convenient how he leaves the parts out that make his "points" moot. Typical leftist trick.



Leftist? Shit...compared to me Bush is a leftist on most issues.



I have said it before and you just reinforced it: The far right and the left sound so much alike it is hard to tell them apart.



OK, you're right.

I'm a leftist. Take my guns and give me a welfare check.

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:19:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I do not dispute Shivan's contention we are "killing ragheads", that Shivan's priorities are being met, and I don't think that Kerry or Gore would be doing any better. That's kind of the whole fucking point!



Please don't attribute derogatory comments such as that to me. I never, ever, used that terminology.

Thanks.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:19:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
Yes...Flame away, but yes.
Aside from his extra-curricular activities, the Clinton administration was unremarkable in regard to major issues. It was "status quo" for 8 years: no war, no major economic issues, etc. History books will remember the Clinton Administration as the one that was strife with more personal than professional issues.



He worked "wonders" for the military personnel and military budgets, huh?



I hate clinton more than most, but in all fairness, the budget cuts for the military started with the bush administration. The clinton administration did continue and increase the cuts though.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:21:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I do not dispute Shivan's contention we are "killing ragheads", that Shivan's priorities are being met, and I don't think that Kerry or Gore would be doing any better. That's kind of the whole fucking point!



Please don't attribute derogatory comments such as that to me. I never, ever, used that terminology.

Thanks.



Sorry...that was Sylvan.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:21:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedave1164:
I hate clinton more than most, but in all fairness, the budget cuts for the military started with the bush administration. The clinton administration did continue and increase the cuts though.



There really was only one direction to go after the Cold War, huh? Reagan had DoD spending at the all time peak of peaks to that point, maybe even compared to now.

However, Clinton deepened and widened the cuts to the point of almost crippling our armed forces.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:24:11 AM EDT
I belive Perot had a very good shot at winning if he hadn't gone off the deep end with all the highjinks and allegations about his daughter's wedding, then pulled out of the race, only to return at the last minute.

Very weird, and I always thought that someone had gotten to him.

But yes, I think the Perot voters then decided to vote for Clintoon after Perot took a powder--and Perot didn't get most of them back after he rejoined the race.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:32:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 9:34:36 AM EDT by HKOVERKILL]

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
Aside from his extra-curricular activities, the Clinton administration was unremarkable in regard to major issues. It was "status quo" for 8 years...




I'll agree with some of that. He was very lucky to have been in office when the Dot Com Boom hit.
That said:
Numerous scandals - not the Monica kind
Gutting of the military (which we're paying for now)
Mount Carmel
Janet Reno
Oh, and a couple of small things: Brady, and the AWB.

I was a moderate/conservative/Southern Democrat, who didn't vote for Clinton (my wife is from Arkansas, worked for the state government, found out all I needed to know about Willie Jeff).
He SHOVED ME hard to the right.
Bush Sr. pissed me off with the import ban (still livid at Bill Bennett), and the renouncing of his NRA membership.

FWIW

HKO
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:05:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
Yes...Flame away, but yes.
Aside from his extra-curricular activities, the Clinton administration was unremarkable in regard to major issues. It was "status quo" for 8 years: no war, no major economic issues, etc. History books will remember the Clinton Administration as the one that was strife with more personal than professional issues.



He worked "wonders" for the military personnel and military budgets, huh?



Question, do you think he was SOLELY responsible for those decisions???
If you do, Katrina WAS Dubya's fault!
And please re-read the part in red...HISTORY will SAY he was a BETTER president due to lack of major economic and global turmoil during his administration.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:09:35 AM EDT
What about that idiotic job creation scheme Clinton came up with? What was that called?

COMMUNISM.

Diverted votes nearly got us the JobAmerica (I can't remember its name but Communism worked for me) racket and socialized healthcare.

I wish we had a 3+ party system. And it's fine to rail against it being a de facto 2 party system. But don't let it sway your vote. Until a viable third party that doesn't suck emerges, we're stuck with two. Get used to it.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:10:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:

Originally Posted By Hellhound:

Originally Posted By SS109:
Most likely. I voted for Ross Perot because Bush the Elder lied about the new taxes. And I think clinton would have lost his second term if the Republicans had only nominated someone else other than Bob Dole.



So, in hindsight, do you feel that Clinton was a better choice than Bush?



Yes...Flame away, but yes.
Aside from his extra-curricular activities, the Clinton administration was unremarkable in regard to major issues. It was "status quo" for 8 years: no war, no major economic issues, etc. History books will remember the Clinton Administration as the one that was strife with more personal than professional issues.





Yeah, his lack of action towards terrorists was a major contribuiting factor towards September 11, 2001. So much for status quo.



His lack of action (in your opinion) will be translated as peacekeeping. And ya know, FWIW, Bin Laden and his boyscouts were well known to the Bush Administration as well. Dubya had nearly 2 years in office under his belt come 9/11.
What did he do with the same info that the Clinton Admin have in those 2 years about those bastards? Same thing Clinton did
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:16:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
What about that idiotic job creation scheme Clinton came up with? What was that called?

COMMUNISM.

Diverted votes nearly got us the JobAmerica (I can't remember its name but Communism worked for me) racket and socialized healthcare.

I wish we had a 3+ party system. And it's fine to rail against it being a de facto 2 party system. But don't let it sway your vote. Until a viable third party that doesn't suck emerges, we're stuck with two. Get used to it.



Preach it.
I'm right there with you.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top